coynedj

rjquillin wrote:We are a country of States, united, the United States. Had the individual States not retained sovereignty granted and guaranteed our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments, our country would not have been founded. Those documents grant only limited authority to the Federal government; defining "marriage" is not one of them, that, being not explicitly granted to the Federal government, went to the States, individually. They can define what marriage is as well as the rights and privileges (taxes) conferred to those residing in a state. Each State can have its own definition, as many have done, and are protected by Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution in that they are not required to recognize laws of another State in conflict with their own. The benefits, and taxes, conferred by one State need not be the same as another State. And we, as citizens, have the right to chose our state of residence, based if we so chose, on the laws of our selected State.

I highly doubt that any legal expert would say that the states, or any other governmental entity in the U.S., have the power to define a word. They can define how a word is to be construed in their own government documents, and that alone. By doing so, they specify who can be considered married with respect to the government-given or government-protected rights and privileges, but nothing more.

If the Supreme Court decides that the rights and privileges must be extended to same-sex couples as part of a Constitutional interpretation, then such rights and privileges must be recognized by the states – they gave up their right to do differently when they ratified the Constitution. If the Court decides not to apply full Constitutional logic to the question, then the states may have more latitude.

In looking up Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, I don’t see where it says that a state can decide not to recognize laws of another state in conflict with their own. The Section reads as follows:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 says The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, which to me sounds like if people are married in one state, the other states have to recognize them as married as well. This only makes sense to me, especially when thinking beyond the current dispute – I would hate to think that one state can decide whether, for example, an adoption or divorce or bankruptcy adjudicated in another state is valid within their borders. That is a path to anarchy.

Warning – this is a legal interpretation conducted by someone who is not a lawyer. One of the joys of political discourse is that one need not actually have expertise in the field to render an opinion. If I’m wrong, I welcome a correction.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

rjquillin

coynedj wrote:I highly doubt that any legal expert would say that the states, or any other governmental entity in the U.S., have the power to define a word. They can define how a word is to be construed in their own government documents, and that alone. By doing so, they specify who can be considered married with respect to the government-given or government-protected rights and privileges, but nothing more.

Well stated

If the Supreme Court decides that the rights and privileges must be extended to same-sex couples as part of a Constitutional interpretation, then such rights and privileges must be recognized by the states – they gave up their right to do differently when they ratified the Constitution. If the Court decides not to apply full Constitutional logic to the question, then the states may have more latitude.

Yes, still with you.

In looking up Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, I don’t see where it says that a state can decide not to recognize laws of another state in conflict with their own. The Section reads as follows:Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

This is however the section I recall cited in the past week or so as the basis for numerous decisions. As i understand, generally state [1] cannot make a law applicable to state [1] that is contradictory to a law in state [2] that state [2] will be required to enforce/observe, assuming both laws are deemed constitutional. I don't recall the specific citations, but there are some landmark decisions, as I understand, in this area.
Ahh, here: Reference THIS wiki entry, the second main paragraph headed Interpretation after ratification of the Constitution quoting a snippet [T]here are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. .
There are other cases referenced within as well. I believe it was this section that was cited with reference to same-sex {marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships} that allow one State to not recognize a statute/law of another as you suggest below.

Section 2 says The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, which to me sounds like if people are married in one state, the other states have to recognize them as married as well. This only makes sense to me, especially when thinking beyond the current dispute – I would hate to think that one state can decide whether, for example, an adoption or divorce or bankruptcy adjudicated in another state is valid within their borders. That is a path to anarchy.

Warning – this is a legal interpretation conducted by someone who is not a lawyer. One of the joys of political discourse is that one need not actually have expertise in the field to render an opinion. If I’m wrong, I welcome a correction.

Not sure this is a correction as much as a differing opinion I've heard discussed this week.

chemvictim

You're a big states rights supporter, right? How does this intersect with states rights in your opinion? Clearly the citizens of CT still have the right to keep and bear arms, and the 2nd amendment says nothing about magazines, etc.

I'm not supporting this law, by the way. I think it's stupid and violates the "spirit" of the 2nd amendment, if not the literal text.

mother

Yes. Unprecedented stupidity. Registering magazines?
Submitting fingerprints to be allowed to purchase ammunition?
Banning over 100 additional guns by name for looking scary?
Functionally banning semi-automatic rifles with anything but a pre 1850's stock design?
Chasing 2500-7500 good paying manufacturing jobs out of the state?
Chasing a major source of tax revenues out of the state?

Not a single thing they are doing would have prevented that shooting. The shithole loser didn't own the guns, didn't buy the ammo, and tactically reloaded with partially full magazines outside each door so magazine capacity wasn't an issue.

chemvictim

mother wrote:Yes. Unprecedented stupidity. Registering magazines?
Submitting fingerprints to be allowed to purchase ammunition?
Banning over 100 additional guns by name for looking scary?
Functionally banning semi-automatic rifles with anything but a pre 1850's stock design?
Chasing 2500-7500 good paying manufacturing jobs out of the state?
Chasing a major source of tax revenues out of the state?

Not a single thing they are doing would have prevented that shooting. The shithole loser didn't own the guns, didn't buy the ammo, and tactically reloaded with partially full magazines outside each door so magazine capacity wasn't an issue.

Safer? No.
Less free? Yes.

I agree. And also, don't you think that every time a gun control law is proposed or passed, it's a giant gift to the gun industry as a whole? And it increases paranoia, why on earth would you want to do that?

mother

klezman wrote:What about trigger locks? Biometric locks that only allow the registered owner to fire the gun? Childproofing laws?

So I have a problem with gun registration because it's not a one-way system. You can't let the government run a SQL query and get a list of all the people that have guns. Lists of people are VERY dangerous when the government goes bad.

However I think if we could get reliable bio-metric triggers down to $100, that would be frigging awesome.

Of course that won't do anything about the real gun problem in America- illegal handguns wielded by minorities in urban areas. Which unfortunately makes it both total third rail territory, and very difficult to solve with more laws. You know, since if they followed the law they wouldn't have guns, and they wouldn't be murdering people with them...

chemvictim wrote:I agree. And also, don't you think that every time a gun control law is proposed or passed, it's a giant gift to the gun industry as a whole? And it increases paranoia, why on earth would you want to do that?

chemvictim

What about trigger locks? Biometric locks that only allow the registered owner to fire the gun? Childproofing laws?

Well, this opinion is coming from place of ignorance (as usual, haha) since I don't actually have any guns. But - if you have one for protection, anything which makes it more difficult to use the weapon would render it less...protective. Like people say to lock your gun in one place and bullets in another. If you really need it for protection, you're probably screwed by the time you get it all unlocked and put together.

mother

chemvictim wrote:Well, this opinion is coming from place of ignorance (as usual, haha) since I don't actually have any guns. But - if you have one for protection, anything which makes it more difficult to use the weapon would render it less...protective. Like people say to lock your gun in one place and bullets in another. If you really need it for protection, you're probably screwed by the time you get it all unlocked and put together.

Which is totally why those people would like biometric triggers. Currently biometric gun lockers are getting really popular.

rjquillin

chemvictim wrote:You're a big states rights supporter, right? How does this intersect with states rights in your opinion? Clearly the citizens of CT still have the right to keep and bear arms, and the 2nd amendment says nothing about magazines, etc.

Yes.
Magazines, as we know them today, didn't exist when the amendments were drafted. Interestingly, it has been suggested the 14th amendment should be used to support the 2nd, however it seems this (2nd) is the only Bill of Rights that Federal courts have not supported with the 14th.
Very Sad.

I'm not supporting this law, by the way. I think it's stupid and violates the "spirit" of the 2nd amendment, if not the literal text.

rjquillin

chemvictim wrote:Well, this opinion is coming from place of ignorance (as usual, haha) since I don't actually have any guns. But - if you have one for protection, anything which makes it more difficult to use the weapon would render it less...protective. Like people say to lock your gun in one place and bullets in another. If you really need it for protection, you're probably screwed by the time you get it all unlocked and put together.

Spot on!
Agree, any weapon, unloaded and/or not immediately available, is useless.
Someone making noises, I'm not stumbling around at night opening a safe, to retrieve a weapon, locate a magazine elsewhere when the adversary may well be between me and my defense.

mother wrote:Which is totally why those people would like biometric triggers. Currently biometric gun lockers are getting really popular.

Bio would be great, hopefully with the capability to recognize other members of my household trained for proper use, and not just myself.

chemvictim

rjquillin wrote: Interestingly, it has been suggested the 14th amendment should be used to support the 2nd, however it seems this (2nd) is the only Bill of Rights that Federal courts have not supported with the 14th.

coynedj

rjquillin wrote:Interestingly, it has been suggested the 14th amendment should be used to support the 2nd, however it seems this (2nd) is the only Bill of Rights that Federal courts have not supported with the 14th.
Very Sad.

Warning - not a lawyer.

But - I have to doubt that the 3rd Amendment has been supported with the 14th (the 3rd deals with the quartering of troops in private homes). Also, the 9th and 10th don't look like Amendments that the 14th could be applied to.

As to the main thrust of this thread, I'm gathering my thoughts. They tend to wander, and often get lost.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

rjquillin

But - I have to doubt that the 3rd Amendment has been supported with the 14th (the 3rd deals with the quartering of troops in private homes). Also, the 9th and 10th don't look like Amendments that the 14th could be applied to.

Nor I...
From Freedmen, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876

In three cases decided in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the United States Supreme Court stated in dicta that the First, Second and Fourth Amendments do not directly limit state action, but did not rule on whether the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited state violation of the rights declared therein. Since then, the Supreme Court has held that most Bill of Rights freedoms are incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, but has done so with little historical analysis and no discussion of the intent of the framers of that amendment. Yet despite the specific declaration of two-thirds of Congress in the Freedmen's Bureau Act, the Court has failed to address whether the Second Amendment was likewise incorporated.

Perhaps 'only' was too firm a statement, and 'most' would have been more appropriate.

coynedj

A most interesting read. Quite telling are the comments, where quite a variety of responses can be found. At least for most, it seems that the letter made people think. That's a step in the right direction.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

rjquillin

coynedj wrote:A most interesting read. Quite telling are the comments, where quite a variety of responses can be found. At least for most, it seems that the letter made people think. That's a step in the right direction.

But almost exclusively wrt gayness from those that appear faithful, and minimally if any wrt fat or Muslim, oh, and one Jewish comment.

I believe, although I wish someone like Sparky were here to confirm, that the argument would be that the same law (or ban) is reinforced in the NT by Jesus, although he doesn't specifically speak to homosexuality; he reinforces marriage(and maybe sex?) between a man and a woman.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim

kylemittskus wrote:I believe, although I wish someone like Sparky were here to confirm, that the argument would be that the same law (or ban) is reinforced in the NT by Jesus, although he doesn't specifically speak to homosexuality; he reinforces marriage(and maybe sex?) between a man and a woman.

Assuming that this is more a philosophical debate than a political one. Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I investigated a little.

This link gives some NT verses which supposedly condemn homosexuality. I clicked on some of them, and I only found one which actually seemed to be about homosexuality as opposed to general lasciviousness, etc. It's one of Paul's nuggets of wisdom, not Jesus. Don't get me started on Paul.

This is the verse . I notice that it also lists a number of other sins, "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."

Why all the harping on homosexuality when damn near everything is a sin? I'll bet that with the exception of murder, most of us have committed those other sins to some degree, at some point. The Christian faith I was raised in very plainly states that we are all sinners and can only be redeemed through Jesus. I can only conclude that the emphasis on homosexuality as a sin comes more from personal dislike than from the bible, and even better when you can grab a bible verse and tell yourself you're doing God's work. It's not so easy to avoid all the sins (lust, dishonesty, malicious thoughts, envy, etc.) but it's a breeze to avoid homosexual activity if you're not homosexual in the first place. I think it's something we can grab onto to make ourselves feel a little more righteous.

This is just my opinion, but I think to persecute someone because of who they love is cruel. Is there a hierarchy of sins? I don't know, but I think cruelty would have to be way up there.

cmaldoon

chemvictim wrote:Assuming that this is more a philosophical debate than a political one. Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I investigated a little.

This link gives some NT verses which supposedly condemn homosexuality. I clicked on some of them, and I only found one which actually seemed to be about homosexuality as opposed to general lasciviousness, etc. It's one of Paul's nuggets of wisdom, not Jesus. Don't get me started on Paul.

This is the verse . I notice that it also lists a number of other sins, "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless."

Why all the harping on homosexuality when damn near everything is a sin? I'll bet that with the exception of murder, most of us have committed those other sins to some degree, at some point. The Christian faith I was raised in very plainly states that we are all sinners and can only be redeemed through Jesus. I can only conclude that the emphasis on homosexuality as a sin comes more from personal dislike than from the bible, and even better when you can grab a bible verse and tell yourself you're doing God's work. It's not so easy to avoid all the sins (lust, dishonesty, malicious thoughts, envy, etc.) but it's a breeze to avoid homosexual activity if you're not homosexual in the first place. I think it's something we can grab onto to make ourselves feel a little more righteous.

This is just my opinion, but I think to persecute someone because of who they love is cruel. Is there a hierarchy of sins? I don't know, but I think cruelty would have to be way up there.

Thanks for the link!

First time that I have read that section. It would appear to me that the crux of the argument is in the last verse presented there:

" Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Basically saying that yes people sin, but whereas it is one thing to sin, it is altogether worse to approve of sin. And in many minds (not mine) condoning gay marriage is approving of sin.

bhodilee

Well, I think maybe. Dads side has ostrich syndrome on this and me and NY siblings don't really talk. They're all minimum 10 years younger and since we'rehalf siblings and I didn't grow up with em we're not overly close.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

chemvictim

rjquillin wrote:All I know so far is I'm writing checks for nearly 40k on an AGI under 100k...
Over double the payout compared to what I've ever had to do before.

Don't try to tell me taxes haven't gone up.

Ouch! What happened? My effective federal tax rate was 17.24 for 2012, just with the standard deduction. No kids, no mortgage, nothing major to deduct. It actually went down a little from the previous year.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.